WWIII starts in the East...or will it?

WI: 1) China holds naval exercises in August 2015 near Taiwanese territorial waters.

2) During the exercises, a Japanese fishing vessel sails too close to the exercise area and is hit and sunk by a Chinese SSM.

3) Both Japan and Taiwan (many of the crew were Taiwanese) issue protests to China, and demand reparations.

4) China denies any wrongdoing, and declares that the 'fishing vessel' was actually a spy ship spying on their naval exercises, and that the Taiwanese have colluded with the Japanese on the matter.

5) Both Japan and Taiwan deny the Chinese accusation, and reiterate their previous demand along with demands for an international investigation.

6) The USA backs Japan and Taiwan, and calls on China to accept international mediation of the matter.

7) China refuses to accept international mediation, stating there is no need to do so in an 'obviously Chinese sphere of interest'.

8) Sensing an opportunity with the rapidly-deteriorating situation to the south, North Korea redeploys three divisions near the DMZ. South Korea responds by placing their forces on alert, while the JSDF and US Forces Japan also go on alert.

9) A Taiwanese fighter is shot down by Chinese fighters, the Chinese claiming that it strayed into Chinese airspace.

10) The US government - while neither accepting or rejecting the Chinese statement - demands that an international investigation be held into the matter and the matter of the Japanese fishing boat. However, the US Seventh Fleet puts to sea, and additional forces are dispatched to Taiwan from Guam.

11) Russia - alarmed by the deteriorating situation - attempts to convince China and North Korea to back down.

12) An electrical malfunction along the North Korean side of the DMZ leads to a fire, which in turn sets off a munitions dump, the explosion of which destroys a nearby fuel depot, which in turn starts a major fire. North Korean troops in the area believe it to be an attack, and open fire with artillery on the South Korean troops on the other side of the line. The South Koreans return fire, and this leads to the full outbreak of war.

13) Alarmed, China attempts to pullback from its hawkish stance, but it is too late. A Chinese submarine is spotted by US and Japanese destroyers in Japanese territorial waters, and after several flybys by US and Japanese helicopters the Chinese fire and damages a Japanese destroyer with a torpedo. The Japanese then proceed to sink the Chinese submarine.

14) The Chinese population goes up in flames, and China declares war on Japan. The USA declares its intent to fulfill its defense obligations to its East Asian Allies, whether it be South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan but expresses hope that the conflict may be contained to the Korean peninsula.

15) Russia declares itself neutral, but the Russian Pacific Fleet is put on alert. Alarmed, Japan reinforces its forces on Hokkaido, heightening tensions even further.

16) A preemptive Chinese attack on Taiwan sees most of the Taiwanese navy destroyed...including a pair of US submarines docked at Taipei. President Obama authorizes retaliatory strikes against the Chinese mainland, and orders long-term war plans to be made against the PRC.

How plausible is this WI? And how will the war end?
 
Last edited:
It's not one WI it's a veritable feast of WI's

All together the plausibility is very low (Tom Clancy level of plausibility)
 
Assuming it does happen - a series of unfortunate events as it is - how would the war go?

What are China and the USA's war aims - it's not clear here apart from being very pissed at the other side?

Everyone is acting all bushido and not apparently considering that the collapse of world trade that will follow will hurt all sides equally.
 
What are China and the USA's war aims - it's not clear here apart from being very pissed at the other side?

Everyone is acting all bushido and not apparently considering that the collapse of world trade that will follow will hurt all sides equally.

For the US in Korea the possibility is open for status quo ante bellum, but against China...well the problem is the preemptive attack on Taiwan which caught two US submarines. Not even close to Pearl Harbor, but it was a surprise attack, and there were those 15 Americans killed when the airliner was shot down. The Americans are angry over those two parts. Congress has passed a declaration, but the US Cabinet is still discussing definite war aims against China.

For China, they intend to finally settle the Taiwanese question, and if possible de-fang Japan for good (Japan did sink a Chinese sub, though this was an act of self-defense), though they might settle for status quo ante bellum against Japan depending on how the war goes in Korea.

North Korea...well it should be obvious, to unite the peninsula. Against Japan would depend on Chinese support.

Japan is officially for status quo ante bellum, but unofficially Abe and friends want North Korea gone, even under the South Koreans. And if they assist in that, they hope to gain political capital with which to advance their agendas with regards to the constitution.

Russia is neutral, but Putin is prepared to take advantage of any opportunity he can get.

What would be America's war aims against China here...that's probably something to be discussed along with how the war might go.
 

Geon

Donor
Future WWIII

Count Valerian

I would say the second half of incident 9 and incident 15 should be removed from consideration as pushing the limits of coincidence, but otherwise I think this scenario has merit. One would hope that all powers concerned would pull back though and let the UN mediate this - if war is declared however does the U.S. have an operational plan for dealing with China?

Also remember China does have a nuclear force - and they would have no hesitation to use it if they felt sufficiently threatened.

Geon
 
Count Valerian

I would say the second half of incident 9 and incident 15 should be removed from consideration as pushing the limits of coincidence, but otherwise I think this scenario has merit. One would hope that all powers concerned would pull back though and let the UN mediate this - if war is declared however does the U.S. have an operational plan for dealing with China?

I've edited number 9, as in hindsight, yes it does seem 'too unfortunate'. OTOH, I disagree that number 15 is pushing things, as Japan reinforcing Hokkaido is perfectly expected should Russia bring even some of their forces up to speed with a conflicts brewing on the mainland and to the south.

Also remember China does have a nuclear force - and they would have no hesitation to use it if they felt sufficiently threatened.

Hopefully Russia can restrain China before things go that far.
 

nbcman

Donor
Due to the surprise attack on US forces, I would expect other governments military involvement with the US against the PRC (UK, Canada, Australia, Philippines) as well as the stoppage of trade to China by other US friendly governments. If China persists, it won't go well for them in the short or long term.

However, I don't think that items 13 or 14 are realistic. It is extremely unlikely that a commanding officer of any navy would attack a combatant vessel from another nation simply for being flown over by aircraft or helos in the other nation's territorial waters. Even if the attack occurred, the PRC government might want an investigation and potential compensation over the loss of the sub but they are not stupid enough to go to war when their sub was sunk in Japanese territorial waters.
 
However, I don't think that items 13 or 14 are realistic. It is extremely unlikely that a commanding officer of any navy would attack a combatant vessel from another nation simply for being flown over by aircraft or helos in the other nation's territorial waters. Even if the attack occurred, the PRC government might want an investigation and potential compensation over the loss of the sub but they are not stupid enough to go to war when their sub was sunk in Japanese territorial waters.

In general I would agree that the PLAN wouldn't be stupid as to want to start a war. But in every military there are hotheads/panicky-types, and the commander of the sub being either of those could lead to a torpedo launch that just had to hit the Japanese ship, which probably launched an ASROC or fired a few rounds from its main gun.

EDIT: As for the PRC, well things have gone to hell in Korea, the public are screaming for Japanese blood, they already intend to commit against Taiwan, and the Japanese will get involved inevitably, so a DOW would be superficial anyway.
 

Geon

Donor
Ooops!

Count Valerian

My apologies - I meant incident 12 - the explosion of the munitions dump on the North Korean/South Korean border. Besides in retrospect I don't think the NK is so maniacally stupid that they want to take the full might of the U.S. on.

Geon

P.S. On the other hand we are talking Kim here!!!
 
Count Valerian

My apologies - I meant incident 12 - the explosion of the munitions dump on the North Korean/South Korean border. Besides in retrospect I don't think the NK is so maniacally stupid that they want to take the full might of the U.S. on.

Accidents happen...:)

...especially considering how shoddy NK infrastructure is from what I've read.

P.S. On the other hand we are talking Kim here!!!

ROFL :D
 
I like the scenario, it's a fun WI. However- you should strike out the parts where Congress actually declares war on North Korea or China. No need to declare war on North Korea, there was never a peace treaty only an armistice and there was never a declaration of war in the first place. For whatever many different reasons the US Congress just doesn't declare war anymore. For many in the conservative or pro-business groups war declaration makes for a lot of government interference at home (and has consequences for insurance claims of certain losses as well); for liberals a declaration of war is seen as unwanted because "we aren't at war with the PEOPLE or the ENTIRE nation, just their mean evil government"; if both liberals and conservatives are ideologically wary on an the same topic for different reasons it's darn near impossible to ever get it done in Congress. Add to that the even more overriding problem from Congress' standpoint in declaring war (no matter what party you're a part of)- once you declare war you give the President HUGE leeway on deciding how to conduct the war, how long you're going to be in it, and you're only real input is going to be the US Senate (without the House's input) ratifying a treaty to end it. Without a declaration of war then the War Powers Resolution of 1973 can limit Presidential actions in a war significantly.
 
I would suggest this would be settled diplomtically before it got that far. However, if it didn't though all you have is a very serious regional war between two great powers, albeit two superpowers. The conflict as it stads would not be WW3 but would certainly have potental to become a global conflict. To become a World War there would need to be escalation in other parts of the world such as the Middle East/North Africa and Eastern Europe (Russian invasion of the Baltic States and/or Ukraine resulting in war between NATO and Russia. Only at this point would a conflict initiated on the Pacific Rim actully become a global war

As to how the war develops and ends, well, that is anybody's guess
 

Puzzle

Donor
Say the US Navy does manage to sweep the seas clean of all Chinese and North Korean opposition and while they don't have air superiority over China Japan and Taiwan are relatively low risk. What happens next? No one is going to invade China, the trade embargo hurts eveyone, its a messy situation that will cost billions.

Similarly if the Chinese beat the US forces will they invade Japan? China will alienate the West if that happens, I think both sides have too much to lose for a near future war.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
As to US war aims it might depend on who is supporting the US, at least unofficially. If India, and maybe Vietnam, is a US leaning neutral, or even allied co-belligerent, then the Tibet question may come up, same with Uyghurstan if there is support coming from Turkey and the other Stans. Then of course there is the resolution of the Korean War with a united Korea and the status of Taiwan as either independent or a part of China, along with the South and East China border issues
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
Say the US Navy does manage to sweep the seas clean of all Chinese and North Korean opposition and while they don't have air superiority over China Japan and Taiwan are relatively low risk. What happens next? No one is going to invade China, the trade embargo hurts eveyone, its a messy situation that will cost billions.

Similarly if the Chinese beat the US forces will they invade Japan? China will alienate the West if that happens, I think both sides have too much to lose for a near future war.

Does the US even need to invade since most of the important parts of China are well within missile and naval rifle range? Just devastate the coasts of China and you knock back most of the last thirty years of progress and development.
 
I like the scenario, it's a fun WI. However- you should strike out the parts where Congress actually declares war on North Korea or China. No need to declare war on North Korea, there was never a peace treaty only an armistice and there was never a declaration of war in the first place. For whatever many different reasons the US Congress just doesn't declare war anymore. For many in the conservative or pro-business groups war declaration makes for a lot of government interference at home (and has consequences for insurance claims of certain losses as well); for liberals a declaration of war is seen as unwanted because "we aren't at war with the PEOPLE or the ENTIRE nation, just their mean evil government"; if both liberals and conservatives are ideologically wary on an the same topic for different reasons it's darn near impossible to ever get it done in Congress. Add to that the even more overriding problem from Congress' standpoint in declaring war (no matter what party you're a part of)- once you declare war you give the President HUGE leeway on deciding how to conduct the war, how long you're going to be in it, and you're only real input is going to be the US Senate (without the House's input) ratifying a treaty to end it. Without a declaration of war then the War Powers Resolution of 1973 can limit Presidential actions in a war significantly.

Point...

As to US war aims it might depend on who is supporting the US, at least unofficially. If India, and maybe Vietnam, is a US leaning neutral, or even allied co-belligerent, then the Tibet question may come up, same with Uyghurstan if there is support coming from Turkey and the other Stans. Then of course there is the resolution of the Korean War with a united Korea and the status of Taiwan as either independent or a part of China, along with the South and East China border issues

Not sure about India, but Vietnam would probably back the US considering how sour relations are between them and China.

Does the US even need to invade since most of the important parts of China are well within missile and naval rifle range? Just devastate the coasts of China and you knock back most of the last thirty years of progress and development.

Then the Chinese government just withdraw into the interior...then what?
 
I agree: 9 and 12 stretch things a bit, otherwise interesting.

How the conflict would play out... Hmmm...

Japan, even without US involvement, has the naval side covered. As just one example of material supporting this suggestion: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/08/23/2003540982/2

Now: if Japan manages to pull off a major victory against the PLAN on their own, then
1) That's billions in research and development lost for China.
2) Nothing standing between enemy submarines and Chinese shipping lanes.
3) Massive loss of face for China - the navy, their most visible 'superpower' symbol, beaten by an 'inferior' enemy. This could lead to major internal issues - wouldn't take much to spin this as government incompetence.

Would they be able to continue a war in such circumstances?
 
I agree: 9 and 12 stretch things a bit, otherwise interesting.

How the conflict would play out... Hmmm...

Japan, even without US involvement, has the naval side covered. As just one example of material supporting this suggestion: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/08/23/2003540982/2

Now: if Japan manages to pull off a major victory against the PLAN on their own, then
1) That's billions in research and development lost for China.
2) Nothing standing between enemy submarines and Chinese shipping lanes.
3) Massive loss of face for China - the navy, their most visible 'superpower' symbol, beaten by an 'inferior' enemy. This could lead to major internal issues - wouldn't take much to spin this as government incompetence.

Would they be able to continue a war in such circumstances?

I doubt if it can be done in a single, decisive battle (though it would be ironic if the JMSDF could pull it off given how America completely disproved the Decisive Battle Doctrine in WWII), but yes, I think Japan could do it. The US Seventh Fleet will probably focus its efforts on supporting the operations on Korea, with only support elements in Taiwan and the waters between Taiwan and Japan. With the Taiwanese Navy knocked out, the JMSDF will probably be the primary naval force in those waters.

The question is considering how much hate there is for Japan in the PRC (not entirely undeserved either both here - further incensed here when Japan sunk a Chinese sub after it fired on a Japanese destroyer - and in OTL over WWII) would the PRC want a peace settlement afterwards? A major Japanese naval victory would boost the profile of the moderate right-wing, and they know that. And the PRC would lose face before their citizens. They might concentrate their efforts in Korea in the process, and I'm not sure if the US and South Korea could hold Korea in the short-term if that happened (long-term I imagine US reinforcements transiting through Japan would make for a bloody but inevitable Allied victory).
 
Top